Vault Folder Structure with Design Copy

[taylorUJ7H2]

G'day, company is moving to Vault Professional 2024 and I want to take this opportunity to restructure our folder system.

Currently we make ~20 different top level machine assemblies for our factory layouts with between 300-1000 unique parts in each. Some parts get reused between the assemblies but most are bespoke to their respective top level.

All ~20 assembly's get manufactured at one go for the same factory, but between each factory there can be changes/improvements/additions/subtractions you name it.

We don't want to duplicate parts so if a part is the same as a previous order we keep it as is (as it should)!

What is a good folder structure/vault procedure for something like this?

I am aware of the Copy Design feature in Vault. But have the following issue:

For Example. Ref to photo for folder structure, all components outside top level are kept in one folder.

Factory 1
Top Level Assy1                        

SubAssy1          

Part1

SubAssy2

Part2

SubAssy3

Part3

We would then Design Copy the Top Level Assy1 to create Factory 2 called Top Level Assy2 starting with all reused parts and then modify as we see fit.

Factory 2

Top Level Assy2   

SubAssy1

Part1

SubAssy2

Part2

SubAssy3 -> SubAssy4

Part3 ->  Part4

We want to create SubAssy4/Part4 for the new factory however SubAssy3/Part3 and SubAssy4/Part4 are similar so people will open Top Level Assy2 and edit SubAssy3/Part3, but not save it out as they don't know its being reused elsewhere, "I'm in Top Level Assy2 so good to go" (people often access to the Part they need to via the Top Level Assy).  This can also happen between Top Level Assy1 and Top Level Assy51.

How do you prevent these unknown editing of parts in other reused assemblies without getting into ECO's, general parts folders or defer updates...etc? 

Regards,

[Gabriel_Watson]

You prevent modifications to other designs by RELEASING/LOCKING files with lifecycle states. Permissions should be set to impede regular users from revising/modifying existing design without approvals.

When you Copy Design a project (factory or machine assembly in your case), that project should be released and locked in place. PUBLISHED. That workflow is what Vault provides at its core to prevent meddling with existing design. Your issue seems to be at the process design level... so if a team leader is evaluating design from the top assembly they would notice how someone did not save changes (consume changes) from the lower levels up to the top. Missing on changes not saved would be visible in pre-approval/pre-release checks.

Now, if your workflow is such that you want to keep everything in flux and not released/locked EVER, or if you have CONCURRENT design for some bad reason, maybe we can think of something to attenuate/mitigate using the PDM tool in the wrong way...

One workaround would be to build standard libraries out of commonly-used parts, and use different numbering/naming for those if possible. That could work if the differences between, say, SubAssy3/Part3 and SubAssy4/Part4 are just cuts fillets, simple stuff. You could keep the core part (built by suppliers/manufacturers) in your standard library, and use an assembly "envelope" for the as-built modifications executed in design via assembly features.

Let's see... in the lack of further examples/information, I will brainstorm here that maybe you could solve this also via folder structure if you decide to break down your folders and have all top assemblies borrow from a "pool" of subassemblies and parts organized in "bins" that make more sense. This is useful if the components are truly interchangeable and most can be classified as libraries and in particular groupings that is intuitive for designers to find (for example, one folder for project layouts/top assemblies, and a parallel folder for "unit assemblies", another parallel folder for "components" with subfolders like "brackets, gears, ribs, etc.). The more commoditized those are, even if made bespoke later via modification, the easier it would be to disperse all of these project folders into a matrix of libraries instead.

I hope this gives you some good ideas, but I am sure there is a lot more to understand before taking a simple solution home.

[taylorUJ7H2]

I found a similar topic that explains my dilema a bit better.  I have asked for a follow up in that thread as this was some time ago and I dont believe iAssemblies would work, nor would model states.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/copy-design-assemblies-keep-link-intact/td-p/6827117

Essentially our 20 assemblies form a "factory", but each factory we improve upon.